Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Throughout much of the short time that humankind has spent on this planet, few questions have been raised and torn apart as often as that regarding the existence of God. Philosophers throughout the ages have tackled this monumental issue, and some of them have gone so far as to try to prove the existence of God from a logical standpoint. Arguments for and against the existence of a Creator abound, but two of these stand above the rest. The first of these is the cosmological argument which while arguable, is unfortunately not entirely disprovable. Easier to argue against is the teleological argument, which actually can be broken down so quickly that one begins to question why it ever became popular in the first place. While neither one of these is guaranteed to convince a dedicated non believer, their interest as philosophical arguments is unquestionable. In the Western tradition of philosophy, the cosmological argument can be traced all the way back to Plato’s Laws. However, its first appearance as a fully formed argument appears in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas Aquinas was a Roman Catholic philosopher who lived in the thirteenth century, and had a phenomenal effect on Western philosophy. In his writings, he came to what he believed to be a basic proof for the existence of God. In summary, the argument stands as such: All things that exist must have beginning, and therefore a cause. The Universe as a thing which exists, must have had a beginning and therefore a cause. A dumbed down version of this is simply that no matter how far one chooses to go back, even before the Big Bang, the Universe had to have started at some point, so something had to coax it into existence. Supporters of the cosmological argument ... ... middle of paper ... ...od strong against the test of time. The cosmological argument for the existence of God is fundamentally flawed, but impossible to disprove by nature. The teleological argument for the existence of God is actually somewhat clever, but easily disprovable. Ultimately, neither philosophy nor science can ever definitively state whether or not God exists. God, if real, exists outside of the realm of what science can measure. Philosophy, while useful in the never-ending debate regarding the great possible being in the sky, is too speculative and this cannot be tested. Arguments for and against God’s existence have been around for a very long time and will likely be around either until God himself makes an appearance, or until the human race dies out. It is not our place to know whether or not there is some higher creative being than us, and personally I am okay with that.
The Main Strengths of the Cosmological Argument There are many strengths within the Cosmological Argument which have proven theories and ways to prove the existence of God. Many of these strengths have come from such scholars as; Copleston, Aquinas and Leibniz, all of which have put together major points to prove the existence of a non-contingent being. One of the main strengths of the Cosmological Argument is from Aquinas way I that was about motion. This would be a posteriori argument because you need to gather evidence from the world around you.
Within William Rowe’s Chapter two of “The Cosmological Argument”, Rowe reconstructs Samuel Clark's Cosmological Argument by making explicit the way in which the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or PSR, operates in the argument as well as providing contradictions of two important criticisms from Rowe’s argument.
In conclusion I am left pretty much in the same place as I have started. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God philosophically. For every philosopher who publishes his or her opinions on the subject, three more are there to tear it down. In the end I think it is best that man does not figure out the answer to this lifelong question. Some things are better left unanswered.
...t causation argument reasoned out in the first place. There had to be a beginning because “If there were no first efficient cause, there would be no last or intermediary efficient causes” (Aquinas, 45).
One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument.
First off, The Cosmological Argument was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1274 through his work entitled Summa Theologica (otherwise known as Five Ways). Its purpose was to prove God’s existence through sensory perception. In Part One, Article Three of Prima Pars, Aquinas states that in order to debate, one must become involved in the opposing argument, then afterwards argue their view. In this case, one must look at both the argument for God’s existence (Theism) and for God’s non-existence (Atheism) in order to truly understand the argument that they are arguing for or against. The cosmological argument is divided into three parts, each containing varying sub-arguments:
... does a good job of arguing against the cosmological argument, Aquinas could still be able to defend his argument. Aquinas believes that God’s existence is not only an article of faith. He denies that God’s existence is an unnatural disclosed truth. Instead, Aquinas believes that God’s existence is verifiable. He argues that God’s existence is already presumed through faith and teachings. He claims that God’s existence can be subject to demonstration and that for those believe who believe God’s existence, it will be a matter of faith. Subsequently, not everyone will be able to fully agree with or understand Aquinas’ reasoning or verification for God’s existence. If one agrees with Aquinas they are able to accept his claims through the belief of faithful teachings rather than by the way that those who may not accept it and only search for distinct means of reason.
In this universe everything has a cause of its existence, so this universe might have a cause, but no is sure who created, so we as humans think that God created this universe, but unless if you’re an atheist who doesn’t believe in God. The reason time exist because of this universe, which mean that time has a cause and time didn’t exist before if the universe wasn’t existed. At the end of the day, as opposed to surmise that God exists, we may think there is only an interminable relapse of causes. Something has dependably existed. God's presence isn't coherently demonstrated, yet it is likely, given the premises. Considered without anyone else, the claim God exists is exceptionally implausible, says Swinburne. However, in light of the cosmological contention, it turns out to be more plausible, on the grounds that God's presence is the best clarification for why the universe exists. God is the real reason why orders and purpose of things that we find on this universe, according to design, viz. We can include the contention from religious experience and a contention from supernatural occurrences. Each work a similar way, “The presence of God is the best clarification for these wonders”. When we set up every one of these contentions together, he asserts, it turns out to be more likely that God exists than that God doesn't. the premises are conceivable, and the inductions are natural. So, in spite of the fact that it isn't an explanatory
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
...nough to support the idea of God’s existence, I consider the debate to have no winner, because, the arguments of Dr. Dacey are also strong enough to prove his position. However, in these debates the double answer is not possible, because in reality the existence of God can be true of untrue, without anything in between. In my opinion, God exists, and I strongly believe in His existence. I consider the question “Does God Exist?” to be the issue of faith, and there cannot be true or false arguments, because all the people are willing to decide, whether they believe in existence of God, or not. It is the inner choice of everybody, and sooner or later we will all find out the truth.
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
Although explicated on many occasions and by many different authors, the teleological argument for the existence of God provides the best springboard from which to launch contemporary convictions of faith. In the revised edition of his earlier The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne constructs a solid outline that reveals the exact structure of the teleological argument. He presents both forms of the teleological argument , holds each under the light of skeptical review and then provides insight and defense that allows for careful philosophical review.
There are three philosophical positions that argue on the existence of God, whether He really exist or not; the Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.
On the other hand, many well-known scientists now admit that certain discoveries tend to indicate that God rather does exist than not. The problem, I suggest, lies in certain preconceptions. If we picture God as a person, then the question comes up: where is God?
From the discussion, it can be concluded that existence of God can be proved and developed by logical reasoning. They can be proved by seeking answers to our everyday questions like what can be bigger than our reason, who dictates solar system to act like an animate body. The evidence may not have physical existence but it is supported by the physical elements of nature.